Blasphemey Law Referendum?

Galvasean

Apparently Dermot Ahern is considering a referendum re: teh blasphemey law this Autumn.
More info here:
http://blasphemy.ie/2010/03/14/ahern-proposes-autumn-referendum-on-blasphemy/

Good idea or waste of time/money?

axer

Why don't they go all out and make the constitution secular altogether. I wonder would it pass though?!

robindch

Not before time, but according to atheist.ie, quoting the Sunday Times, Dermot Ahern looks redy to wash his hands of the blasphemy legislation:

Sunday Times wrote:

Dermot Ahern, the justice minister, is proposing that a vote to remove the criminal offence of blasphemy be held as part of a planned series of referendums this autumn, writes Stephen O'Brien.

Ahern, who was criticised for increasing the fine for blasphemy to €25,000 last year, said he never regarded the provision in the new Defamation Bill as anything more than a short-term solution.

"There was a lot of nonsense about that blasphemy issue and people making me out to be a complete right-winger at the time," he said. "There was an incredibly sophisticated campaign [against me], mainly on the internet. I was only doing my duty in relation to it, because clearly it is in the constitution. The attorney general said 'there is this absolute, mandatory thing. it is on offence, punishable by law."

A final decision on a blasphemy referendum rests with the cabinet, but if Ahern remains justice minister after this month's reshuffle, he is likely to propose that it be added to the autumn list. The government is already committed to referendums on children's rights and establishing a permanent court of civil appeal.

The plebiscites are expected to take place in October, on the same day as the a vote for a new directly elected mayor of Dublin, and three Dail by-elections in Donegal South-West, Dublin South and Waterford.

"I said [last year] that I didn't want a wasteful standalone referendum on blasphemy in the middle of an economic crisis," said Ahern. "My preference was to reform [the blasphemy provision] in the short term and to have a referendum in the medium term when it could be bundled with a number of others."

A defamation bill was already in preparation when Ahern became justice minister in May 2008.

Ahern then said he had three options: to abandon the bill; to hold a single-issue referendum to remove the constitutional reference to blasphemy; or to update the references in the 1961 Defamation Act.

Opting for reform, he said he had removed the seven-year jail sentence from the old legislation.

Herbal Deity

Indeed. If they're going to spend money on a referendum, why not have several issues relating to removing stupid, archaic stuff from the constitution such as references to God or women's place in the home.

King Mob

Galvasean wrote: »

Apparently Dermot Ahern is considering a referendum re: teh blasphemey law this Autumn.
More info here:
http://blasphemy.ie/2010/03/14/ahern-proposes-autumn-referendum-on-blasphemy/

Good idea or waste of time/money?

Not as good as fully secularising the constitution, but still much better than leaving it as is.

The Mad Hatter

Wonder why he didn't just do this in the first place. It's almost as if he wanted to give atheists a reason to organise.

King Mob

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

Wonder why he didn't just do this in the first place. It's almost as if he wanted to give atheists a reason to organise.

I actually agree with him. A referendum on such a stand alone issue in the middle of a really bad economy would not have gone over well with most of the voters.

I would like to know however why he didn't just set the fine uselessly low, like a euro or something?

Daftendirekt

What was the 'incredibly sophisticated campaign' he mentions? Surely not Atheist Ireland's list of quotes?

iUseVi

Daftendirekt wrote: »

What was the 'incredibly sophisticated campaign' he mentions? Surely not Atheist Ireland's list of quotes?

Indeed. If that was sophisticated I'm the Queen of Egypt.

King Mob

Church of Dermotology?

axer

I think that this year would be the best time to get a secular constitution passed what with all the abuse and failure of the church coming to light. I doubt ahern would have the balls to go the whole hog though.

PeterIanStaker

this would indeed be a great opportunity to secularise the withered 1937 Constitution. It'll be a mixture of funny/scary to watch Cóir/Christotaliban come out againt such a referedum.

Or, alternatively, could they hold this and the Referendum on the Rights of the Child together? (another one the God Squad would be against)

jhegarty

axer wrote: »

I think that this year would be the best time to get a secular constitution passed what with all the abuse and failure of the church coming to light. I doubt ahern would have the balls to go the whole hog though.

I know there is still the bit in the preamble , but what other bits are still left in the constitution?

krudler

Daftendirekt wrote: »

What was the 'incredibly sophisticated campaign' he mentions? Surely not Atheist Ireland's list of quotes?

I think it was the "If 65 million people join, god will bring back the dinosaurs!" facebook page:D

Dades

Does anyone remember Ahern saying this was just a temporary measure until he could stick it in a referendum? Because I don't.

axer wrote: »

I think that this year would be the best time to get a secular constitution passed what with all the abuse and failure of the church coming to light. I doubt ahern would have the balls to go the whole hog though.

I kinda doubt the public would have the balls to go the whole hog, too.

Coriolanus

I remember him saying it was this or a blasphemy referendum but that he didn't think the issue alone warranted the expense.

axer

jhegarty wrote: »

I know there is still the bit in the preamble , but what other bits are still left in the constitution?

Judges and the President must take an oath asking god to direct and sustain their work.

• Article 40.6.1 guarantees the right of citizens to express freely their convictions and opinions subject to public order and morality. It then restricts this right by saying that says that “The publication or utterance of blasphemous, seditious, or indecent matter is an offence which shall be punishable in accordance with law.”
• Article 44.1 says that “The State acknowledges that the homage of public worship is due to Almighty God. It shall hold His Name in reverence, and shall respect and honour religion.” Note that this article does not enshrine the rights of citizens to worship this imagined character. Instead, it enshrines the rights of this imagined character to be worshipped.

Stercus Accidit

I haven't seen it mentioned, but what is he proposing be changed in the referendum, only the call for blasphemy to be an offence?

Its about time that the constitution made some sense as a complete piece, it does state that we are free from religious discrimination and so forth but then itself discriminates, the constitution shouldn't contradict itself in this way, the preamble is a joke, but it isn't in law is it?

King Mob

Dades wrote: »

Does anyone remember Ahern saying this was just a temporary measure until he could stick it in a referendum? Because I don't.

I kinda doubt the public would have the balls to go the whole hog, too.

He said it was the only thing he could do barring a referendum, he didn't say anything about when or if he'd put it to a referendum AFAIR.

Dades

King Mob wrote: »

He said it was the only thing he could do barring a referendum, he didn't say anything about when or if he'd put it to a referendum AFAIR.

That's what I thought - so he's talking crap now about a referendum being his intention all along.

King Mob

Dades wrote: »

That's what I thought - so he's talking crap now about a referendum being his intention all along.

Stop Presses!
Politician flips-flops and talks crap!

Tomk1

Quote:
Originally Posted by Daftendirekt
What was the 'incredibly sophisticated campaign' he mentions? Surely not Atheist Ireland's list of quotes?

iUseVi wrote: »

Indeed. If that was sophisticated I'm the Queen of Egypt.

Well for the year Atheist Ireland had many meetings through out the country, many people came forward on radio shows against the Law, Between the 25 Quotes getting worldwide attention, now someone saying everything can be contributed to Atheist Ireland, would be misleading, but it is pivotal in the campaign. Some people are just against the law for other reasons namely fear of another religion; many see it as an infringement of free speech. As Senator Ivana Bacik said:

That it would generate a stiffening of freedom of speech, that it would have the American expression a chilling effect on free speech, because people would be fearful of being prosecuted - we should be very wary of the creation of any new statutory offence that gives such an elevated position to religious persons and elevates their... feelings of outrage and offence into this extortionary status where if you offend them or insult them, you may be open to prosecution, where if someone offends my socialist or feminist beliefs I can’t prosecute them nor should I be able too, sometimes I may want to take other action (joking-laughing) but clearly not, I wouldn’t for a second believe that anyone who insults my politics, that they should be open to prosecution of course they shouldn’t, anyone to who pokes fun at Atheists of course shouldn’t be open to prosecution. But why then should somebody, should religion be privileged above other forms of idealology or belief system, and that really is the core of my problem with this offence, is that religion is being privileged in the same way that it’s privileged in so many other aspects of our society –(example Education, section 37 of the employment equality act, Healthcare, in welfare institutions and in the criminal laws)

So there are many voices against this law.

But the comment 'incredibly sophisticated campaign' is a far cry from what a Justice spokesperson said about the 25 statements and those against the Law as “a Crackpot living in an attic”

Tigger

i fear that a blasphemey law referundum will result in a huge reassurgence in the church

do not underestimate the roman empire

Zillah

Ok.

Ireland, this is your chance.

For the last decade I have seen a lot of nice and reassuring things. You're finally starting to hold the Catholic Church responsible for its crimes. You've welcomed people of other races and faiths, and you've got organisations encouraging people to come out as atheists, and they are.

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt. Crush this absurd element of the constitution and you will show me that you're finally shaking off our own private dark age out here in the Atlantic.

We can't afford referendums very often, don't waste this chance.

MrPudding

Zillah wrote: »

Ok.

Ireland, this is your chance.

For the last decade I have seen a lot of nice and reassuring things. You're finally starting to hold the Catholic Church responsible for its crimes. You've welcomed people of other races and faiths, and you've got organisations encouraging people to come out as atheists, and they are.

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt. Crush this absurd element of the constitution and you will show me that you're finally shaking off our own private dark age out here in the Atlantic.

We can't afford referendums very often, don't waste this chance.

I fear you will be disappointed.

MrP

jhegarty

axer wrote: »

Judges and the President must take an oath asking god to direct and sustain their work.

Can't imagine any reasonable person having a objection to changing that to been like swearing / affirming in court.

axer

jhegarty wrote: »

Can't imagine any reasonable person having a objection to changing that to been like swearing / affirming in court.

So what should a muslim or athiest do then or do they just not go for those positions?

I believe that you do not have to put your hand on the bible and swear to god in court.

iUseVi

Tigger wrote: »

i fear that a blasphemey law referundum will result in a huge reassurgence in the church

do not underestimate the roman empire

I agree, a referendum could well be disastrous. There are still plenty of loyal supporters left, just because people moan a bit doesn't mean they have jumped the ship altogether.

jhegarty

axer wrote: »

So what should a muslim or athiest do then or do they just not go for those positions?

I believe that you do not have to put your hand on the bible and swear to god in court.

In a court you can affirm. It's an oath with no reference to God or use of a Bible.

I am saying it should be changed so you can do the same for those positions.

axer

jhegarty wrote: »

In a court you can affirm. It's an oath with no reference to God or use of a Bible.

I am saying it should be changed so you can do the same for those positions.

I misread your post. Sorry. Yes, I agree.

Coriolanus

iUseVi wrote: »

I agree, a referendum could well be disastrous. There are still plenty of loyal supporters left, just because people moan a bit doesn't mean they have jumped the ship altogether.

Plus they're generally the kind of people who vote rain hail or shine. A lot of the support for atheist ireland etc has been from the kind of demographic that doesn't vote.

I'm afraid all the people around here who voted in Dana would vote to keep blasphemy on the books.

Shenshen

Nevore wrote: »

Plus they're generally the kind of people who vote rain hail or shine. A lot of the support for atheist ireland etc has been from the kind of demographic that doesn't vote.

Not to mention us foreign nationals, who haven't yet been able to scrape together the funds to buy citizenship in this country.

Coriolanus

Shenshen wrote: »

Not to mention us foreign nationals, who haven't yet been able to scrape together the funds to buy citizenship in this country.

That'd be another one, yeah.

recedite

I'd say the spectacle of the frocked ones joining forces with the islamic gentlemen would be a big turn off for many of the Dana supporters.
The liberals would probably win out in the end.

Coriolanus

Interesting, I didn't realise that. Certainly something to look into. I'm pretty sure a law drafted and signed by the Dail can't over ride the Constitution, it has to refer to it.
Unfortunately, legal advice is expensive for NGOs, there is nothing like the pro-bono charity culture here compared to say the states, where you'd have lots of junior associates, bar graduates etc, giving days of service over to free clinics.

bnt

Nevore wrote: »

Interesting, I didn't realise that. Certainly something to look into. I'm pretty sure a law drafted and signed by the Dail can't over ride the Constitution, it has to refer to it.

Sorry - just deleted that post because I overlooked a crucial word in Article 47.3: "Every citizen who has the right to vote at an election for members of Dáil Éireann shall have the right to vote at a Referendum." That's that, then - you don't want darn furriners coming in and changing your Constitution for you.

nozzferrahhtoo

Seems all this has made its way into a Time article.

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1979032,00.html

cypharius

recedite wrote: »

I'd say the spectacle of the frocked ones joining forces with the islamic gentlemen would be a big turn off for many of the Dana supporters.
The liberals would probably win out in the end.

Easy there O'Reily, this is meant to be Fair and Balanced.


Sorry, couldn't resist.

Maximilian

The problem lies with our constitution, although I have my doubts as to whether there was on obligation to re-enact an offense of blasphemy in the Defamation Act.

Regardless, I think its an important referendum. As long is exists, we have no credibility when criticizing other countries for their archaic and frankly evil religious laws. It also undermines other EU countries too, because the likes of Saudi Arabia can point to us and say look at Ireland, blasphemy is an offense there.

Plus it's completely pointless since god doesn't exist. It makes us all look stupid and medieval.

PeterIanStaker

If this goes through, we'll be the envy of the American Deep South. They'd love something like this where they could throw ya in the hoosegow fo' sayin' stuff 'bout Jeesis. Booooay.

King Mob

Maximilian wrote: »

Regardless, I think its an important referendum. As long is exists, we have no credibility when criticizing other countries for their archaic and frankly evil religious laws. It also undermines other EU countries too, because the likes of Saudi Arabia can point to us and say look at Ireland, blasphemy is an offense there.

QFT.

This is, I think, the most important worry of the whole blasphemy thing.

The other concerns (banning books and articles etc. and being abused by organisations) are a bit of slippery slope argument, and rely on worst case scenarios.

Bottle_of_Smoke

99% sure this would be removed from constitution if put to referendum.

I don't think any of the main parties would look for a no vote. Pretty much everyone thinks its ridiculous. Think it was only the mpac muslim nutjobs who supported it.

dvpower

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm afraid all the people around here who voted in Dana would vote to keep blasphemy on the books.

It'll be a fun campaign then. I look forward to reading the referendum commission's explanation of the No arguement.

PeterIanStaker

dvpower wrote: »

It'll be a fun campaign then. I look forward to reading the referendum commission's explanation of the No arguement.

I couldn't resist it. Sorry.

Valmont

I think the blasphemy law should be the least of our worries regarding our constitution.

MikeC101

dvpower wrote: »

It'll be a fun campaign then. I look forward to reading the referendum commission's explanation of the No arguement.

It would be an interesting campaign, to say the least. Maybe all those who want a blasphemy law could get together and put the fun back into fundamentalism. I'd guess they're far more likely to go for the "mental" part though.

Maybe the Sith Lord, Darth Ganley would return for it. Also, I can't even begin to imagine what the posters from Cóir would be like.

The more I think about it, the less I look forward to a campaign on this.

PeterIanStaker

If I may be utterly serious for a moment, I sincerely hope neither of those two malevolences return.

Zillah

MikeC101 wrote: »

Maybe the Sith Lord, Darth Ganley would return for it. Also, I can't even begin to imagine what the posters from Cóir would be like.

Knowing Cóir, they'd probably be something like "Vote No or Have Your Organs Harvested!" with a picture of a beautiful baby crying.